3 ms·

> At the risk of being a little flippant: yes. It is a "threat," in the sense that it's an explicit communication that someone is going to be displeased if you

> At the risk of being a little flippant: yes. It is a "threat," in the sense that it's an explicit communication that someone is going to be displeased if you say the thing that you've been telegraphing. The "threat" is that you might not be able to rely on their (or their community's) implicit social approbation in the future. In the context of things like racism, this feels like an awfully mild threat. So you agree with me that people who say that are not sincere, and not legitimate. Threats are actually not a valid consequence of speech. Do you understand that the whole "not freedom from consequence" platitude is essentially just telling an assault victim that it is their fault, because assault is just a "consequence" of walking around in public. "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence" = "Shut up or you will be punished" That's probably what Harvey Weinstein or Jefferey Epstein told his victims. And if you say something like that, you are probably a bad person.

woodruffw 6y ago
> So you agree with me that people who say that are not sincere, and not legitimate. I don’t agree, sorry. They seem perfectly sincere; I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimate” in this context (what would “legitimate” behavior look like here? Never disengaging from another person’s attempt at a conversation, no matter how absurd the priors are? This doesn’t feel like a reasonable standard to demand of others.) I put “threat” in scare-quotes because I thought it was obvious that this isn’t really a threat in any meaningful sense. Equating it to abuse is specious and distasteful.
- apostacy 6y ago
  > I don’t agree, sorry. They seem perfectly sincere; I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimate” in this context (what would “legitimate” behavior look like here? Never disengaging from another person’s attempt at a conversation, no matter how absurd the priors are? This doesn’t feel like a reasonable standard to demand of others.) > I put “threat” in scare-quotes because I thought it was obvious that this isn’t really a threat in any meaningful sense. Equating it to abuse is specious and distasteful. I don't think the platitude itself is a threat, I'm saying that it is the same as condoning illegitimate bad behavior as a response to people exercising their rights. It is condoning bad behavior, and in the sense that it is amplifying a potential threat and coercing someone to not exercise their rights, it does sound like a threat, in a small way. For example, it is generally frowned upon to tell a woman that she should make herself less attractive because it is her fault if she is assaulted. Even if there might be a kernel of truth to it, it is a shitty thing to say, and one might even call it "invalid", because it is often outside of whether someone indeed has the right to walk in public or say what they please. And, in our society, even the worst people should have the same rights as all of us. Because all of us are the worst people to someone. These tactics are themselves wrong; illegitimate. So it should give you pause when you see that you are doing the same thing as those who silence people speaking truth to power. I'm sorry, I really thought my examples were helpful.
Supermancho 6y ago
> Threats are actually not a valid consequence of speech. Not sure what you mean by "valid". Sounds like a moral stance. Thoughts are a consequence of speech. A threat is an expression of a thought. > Do you understand that the whole "not freedom from consequence" platitude is essentially just telling an assault victim that it is their fault No, it does not. Trying to abridge expression, to prevent misinterpretation is impractical. Defensively speaking to that end, is not an element to free speech. It's specifically in opposition. > "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence" = "Shut up or you will be punished" Or you will be rewarded. > That's probably what Harvey Weinstein or Jefferey Epstein told his victims. I'm glad you have the right to express your beliefs, although I disagree with how you interpret speech. Just because someone acts virtuously or within their rights, does not mean they are given privilege, nor guarantee that they will be rewarded, nor guaranteed that there will be no retribution. Speech rights do not solve imbalances of power. The philosophy of free speech, as I understand it, is not about individuals per se. Over time, enough people will have enough opportunity to solve their own problems (including power imbalance), by cultural change.

woodruffw 6y ago

> So you agree with me that people who say that are not sincere, and not legitimate. I don’t agree, sorry. They seem perfectly sincere; I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimate” in this context (what would “legitimate” behavior look like here? Never disengaging from another person’s attempt at a conversation, no matter how absurd the priors are? This doesn’t feel like a reasonable standard to demand of others.) I put “threat” in scare-quotes because I thought it was obvious that this isn’t really a threat in any meaningful sense. Equating it to abuse is specious and distasteful.

apostacy 6y ago
> I don’t agree, sorry. They seem perfectly sincere; I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimate” in this context (what would “legitimate” behavior look like here? Never disengaging from another person’s attempt at a conversation, no matter how absurd the priors are? This doesn’t feel like a reasonable standard to demand of others.) > I put “threat” in scare-quotes because I thought it was obvious that this isn’t really a threat in any meaningful sense. Equating it to abuse is specious and distasteful. I don't think the platitude itself is a threat, I'm saying that it is the same as condoning illegitimate bad behavior as a response to people exercising their rights. It is condoning bad behavior, and in the sense that it is amplifying a potential threat and coercing someone to not exercise their rights, it does sound like a threat, in a small way. For example, it is generally frowned upon to tell a woman that she should make herself less attractive because it is her fault if she is assaulted. Even if there might be a kernel of truth to it, it is a shitty thing to say, and one might even call it "invalid", because it is often outside of whether someone indeed has the right to walk in public or say what they please. And, in our society, even the worst people should have the same rights as all of us. Because all of us are the worst people to someone. These tactics are themselves wrong; illegitimate. So it should give you pause when you see that you are doing the same thing as those who silence people speaking truth to power. I'm sorry, I really thought my examples were helpful.

Supermancho 6y ago

> Threats are actually not a valid consequence of speech. Not sure what you mean by "valid". Sounds like a moral stance. Thoughts are a consequence of speech. A threat is an expression of a thought. > Do you understand that the whole "not freedom from consequence" platitude is essentially just telling an assault victim that it is their fault No, it does not. Trying to abridge expression, to prevent misinterpretation is impractical. Defensively speaking to that end, is not an element to free speech. It's specifically in opposition. > "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence" = "Shut up or you will be punished" Or you will be rewarded. > That's probably what Harvey Weinstein or Jefferey Epstein told his victims. I'm glad you have the right to express your beliefs, although I disagree with how you interpret speech. Just because someone acts virtuously or within their rights, does not mean they are given privilege, nor guarantee that they will be rewarded, nor guaranteed that there will be no retribution. Speech rights do not solve imbalances of power. The philosophy of free speech, as I understand it, is not about individuals per se. Over time, enough people will have enough opportunity to solve their own problems (including power imbalance), by cultural change.